As Benchy has pointed out, the difference is that Fawad’s religious views are not harming another person. If those views were to adversely affect someone (as with your Clarke example) then it should unquestionably be not tolerated and be illegal.

I think the biggest thing to consider is that all three parties directly involved (Fawad, CA, and VB) are ok with the compromise, at least publically. I think this compromise is a very mature and sensible way to handle this situation. If they are ok with it, then why should anyone else’s knickers be in a twist? The interesting scenario to me would have been if VB had insisted on Fawad wearing the logo. In that case, I would’ve labeled them the highest **** possible, but it would’ve been their right to insist on it. In that scenario, Fawad can either grudgingly wear the shirt or if he believes that strongly against it, not be part of the team. I certainly wouldn’t have advocated that a law be passed to grant him a religious exemption and CA be forced to accommodate him. Fortunately we don’t have to face that issue as it seems sensible people are in charge. So again, what’s the problem?

because in modern australia it's au courant to be indignant for someone else, whether they like it or not